Bishop Athanasius Schneider criticizes Communion in the hand

  • Thread starter Thread starter NeelyAnn
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
N

NeelyAnn

Guest
From Athanasius Contra Mundum -

Bishop Athanasius Schneider criticizes Communion in the hand

**Wow. This is why I tell people not to lose the virtue of hope. That a Bishop could say this on EWTN of all places shows how we are moving in the right direction.

athanasiuscm.blogspot.com/ **
 
EWTN is the most likely place to hear something like this. They tend to be quite traditional.
 
NeelyAnn said:
From Athanasius Contra Mundum -

Bishop Athanasius Schneider criticizes Communion in the hand

**Wow. This is why I tell people not to lose the virtue of hope. That a Bishop could say this on EWTN of all places shows how we are moving in the right direction.

athanasiuscm.blogspot.com/**
Click to expand...
It should be understood that the indolt that allows communion in the hand is still in effect in the U.S. There is nothing illicit in receiving this way. I, for one, don’t have a problem with by-hand, but by-mouth seems to give more respect to the Lord in my mind.
 
pnewton said:
I thought the TLM did not allow for communion in the hand.
Click to expand...
The TLM does not.

Communion on the Tongue vs Communion in the Hand is a topic often discussed in traditional circles. Bishop Schneider does a very good job expressing why we should not be receiving Communion in the Hand. It is nice to have support from a Bishop like this every now and then. I believe he has also wriiten a book on this topic.
 
NeelyAnn said:
The TLM does not.

Communion on the Tongue vs Communion in the Hand is a topic often discussed in traditional circles.
Click to expand...
Then in keeping with the Golden Rule, would you think it right that those who do not attend the TLM to criticize that, like in the Liturgy and Sacraments forum? Or is it only those who attend the TLM that have the right to criticize other liturgies?
 
pnewton said:
I thought the TLM did not allow for communion in the hand.
Click to expand...
No way to stop it, I guess. I’ve seen it a few times. Makes it a little awkward for the priest to extend the Host across the communion railing and kneeler too.
 
pnewton said:
Then in keeping with the Golden Rule, would you think it right that those who do not attend the TLM to criticize that, like in the Liturgy and Sacraments forum? Or is it only those who attend the TLM that have the right to criticize other liturgies?
Click to expand...
Those who oppose CIH generally consider it to be sacrilegious and enabling of abuse. If the OF-exclusive folks thought the same of CIM, they certainly have the right to voice their opinion and we could have a spirited debate about it, I suppose (although, methinks we already have, ad-nauseum).

BTW, Please forgive my use of acronyms - I am an engineer and I can’t help myself.
 
I participated in a similar post about a month ago. I defended CITH and have decided to only receive COTT. Just my thoughts.
 
\
Wow. This is why I tell people not to lose the virtue of hope. That a Bishop could say this on EWTN of all places shows how we are moving in the right direction. \

And it is noteworthy to have this said on EWTN because…???
 
pnewton said:
Then in keeping with the Golden Rule, would you think it right that those who do not attend the TLM to criticize that, like in the Liturgy and Sacraments forum? Or is it only those who attend the TLM that have the right to criticize other liturgies?
Click to expand...
I attend the Novus Ordo Mass on weekdays when I can and Sundays when I cant make it to an old rite mass.

I criticize CITH very strongly and not because it is received in the hand. It is because people do not take adequate care for the Fragments of the Blessed Sacrament.

The only reason people defend the modern method of CITH is because they do not understand Transubstantiation correctly.

Paul
 
PaulAndrew83 said:
The only reason people defend the modern method of CITH is because they do not understand Transubstantiation correctly.

Paul
Click to expand...
That is a rather broad generalization, and I have found it on occassion to be untrue.
 
pnewton said:
That is a rather broad generalization, and I have found it on occassion to be untrue.
Click to expand...
Hold on there, pn. Paul may be onto something there, especially if you found it only on occasion to be untrue, implying that other times you may find it true? 😉

Seriously, though this is the first I’ve heard of the lost meaning of Transubstantiation, and it’s a subjective argument but it makes sense. Of course, I’m biased toward COTT but if you treat the consecrated host in the normal way of eating bread, then you may actually **be tempted to accept it **as consubstantiation instead, which, of course, is heresy.
 
Aces_High said:
Well, I disagree with the Bishop.
Click to expand...
About what and on what basis?

Are you denying the Real Presence? The Bishop’s history? The comment (which is entirely factual) fragments result from CITH? Or just that CITH is ‘just as reverent’ as kneeling on an altar rail receiving the Eucharist without any handling at all?

It’s not unexpected that people will differ on this issue, but you have to be a little more specific in your objection to the Bishop’s argument.
 
KingTheoden said:
About what and on what basis?

Are you denying the Real Presence? The Bishop’s history? The comment (which is entirely factual) fragments result from CITH? Or just that CITH is ‘just as reverent’ as kneeling on an altar rail receiving the Eucharist without any handling at all?

It’s not unexpected that people will differ on this issue, but you have to be a little more specific in your objection to the Bishop’s argument.
Click to expand...
I have no idea what you’re on about mate.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top